Democratic 2020 Presidential Primary Thread

[row_33]

i very much enjoy Canada's single payer medical plan and i'm not a socialist in any way fathomable.

 

 

[3rdnlng]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

Joe Biden even if he is dead the day before the election can beat him. The Democratic base will turn out. Our base is bigger than your base 

Somewhere in this forum there was a post by B-Man quoting the percentage of democrats attending Trump rallies. If I remember correctly, 27% of the people attending are registered democrats. How do you like them apples?

[Tiberius]

11 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Somewhere in this forum there was a post by B-Man quoting the percentage of democrats attending Trump rallies. If I remember correctly, 27% of the people attending are registered democrats. How do you like them apples?

Lol, oh B-Man posted it?! 

 

That's funny!!! 

 

 

[row_33]

I like Joe Biden, i think he'd do a great job as the Dem nominee, maybe make a solid President if he won

 

[3rdnlng]

18 minutes ago, row_33 said:

I like Joe Biden, i think he'd do a great job as the Dem nominee, maybe make a solid President if he won

 

Joe Biden has the backbone of a jellyfish. He is always wrong on the issues, especially foreign policy issues. For example, he advised Obama to not go after Osama Bin Laden when he did. His reason was that it could harm him politically if the mission failed.

[row_33]

4 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Joe Biden has the backbone of a jellyfish. He is always wrong on the issues, especially foreign policy issues. For example, he advised Obama to not go after Osama Bin Laden when he did. His reason was that it could harm him politically if the mission failed.

 

he's the only legit option for the Dems

 

if Trump croaks than I want to see the best Dem win

 

 

[3rdnlng]

5 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

he's the only legit option for the Dems

 

if Trump croaks than I want to see the best Dem win

 

 

Then it will be Pence who will continue Trump's policies.

[row_33]

3 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Then it will be Pence who will continue Trump's policies.

 

before i show up here i make sure to visit Breitbart to ensure "nothing happened" of major consequence

 

you never know in this day and age...

 

you could be so far behind something major after last visiting 10 minutes ago.

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

FIRED UP FOR 2020:  WATCH: Liberal college students can’t name one Democratic accomplishment.

 

 

 

.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[B-Man]

 

ELIZABETH WARREN’S HEALTH CARE 

HARA-KIRI

 

Medicare for All would enroll everyone in the same government plan, whatever their preferences. 

 

Let’s be clear about what this would mean. According to the most recent government statistics, more than 218 million Americans now participate in private health-care plans, of which 179 million are employment-based. As critics of Medicare for All have pointed out, many of these plans are the result of tough negotiations in which employees have compromised on wages and working conditions in return for more-generous health-insurance benefits. These workers would be asked to surrender their hard-won gains in return for a promise that they will prefer what they get from the government instead. 

 

In the early 1960s, when I was young and 70% of Americans told pollsters they trusted the federal government, this promise might have garnered wide acceptance. Today, with trust below 20%, it will be a much harder sell. 

 

Don’t take my word for it. As recently as March 2018, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, support for Medicare for All stood at 59% and opposition at just 38%. Now, after more than a year of intensifying discussion, support has fallen 8 points, to 51%, while opposition has risen by 9 points, to 47%. 

 

Here’s a big reason why. As recently as January, 67% of those who favored Medicare for All believed that it wouldn’t jeopardize their family’s current health insurance. Although Kaiser hasn’t updated this figure, many of the plan’s early backers must have discovered that their prior belief was contrary to fact.

 

Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...

[section122]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

 

ELIZABETH WARREN’S HEALTH CARE 

HARA-KIRI

 

Medicare for All would enroll everyone in the same government plan, whatever their preferences. 

 

Let’s be clear about what this would mean. According to the most recent government statistics, more than 218 million Americans now participate in private health-care plans, of which 179 million are employment-based. As critics of Medicare for All have pointed out, many of these plans are the result of tough negotiations in which employees have compromised on wages and working conditions in return for more-generous health-insurance benefits. These workers would be asked to surrender their hard-won gains in return for a promise that they will prefer what they get from the government instead. 

 

In the early 1960s, when I was young and 70% of Americans told pollsters they trusted the federal government, this promise might have garnered wide acceptance. Today, with trust below 20%, it will be a much harder sell. 

 

Don’t take my word for it. As recently as March 2018, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, support for Medicare for All stood at 59% and opposition at just 38%. Now, after more than a year of intensifying discussion, support has fallen 8 points, to 51%, while opposition has risen by 9 points, to 47%. 

 

Here’s a big reason why. As recently as January, 67% of those who favored Medicare for All believed that it wouldn’t jeopardize their family’s current health insurance. Although Kaiser hasn’t updated this figure, many of the plan’s early backers must have discovered that their prior belief was contrary to fact.

 

Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...

 

This is behind a paywall.  So I did a little digging on the Kaiser poll and here is what I found:

That seems to be the case across parties. Overall, 71 percent of Democrats, 51 percent of independents, and 28 percent of Republicans favor “Medicare for All,” according to Kaiser. But support is down across all three, while opposition is up. It’s a little tricky to read the trends, because Kaiser’s polling results have a pretty high margin of error when broken down by party (6 percent in the latest survey).

Pure partisanship has probably kicked in a bit as well; as the primary campaign has worn on, Republicans and Republican-leaning independents may have come to associate the idea with Democratic candidates, leading them to reject it.

 

I find it funny that Americans are still favoring according to this and they want to say people don't want it.  I will admit 51% is certainly within the margin for error but you shouldn't pretend this is a wildly unpopular idea.  Repubs love the idea of trickle down economics, universal health care would erase one of the largest costs to employers and they could pass the savings down to their employees right? 

 

This line sticks out to me from you article:

 

employees have compromised on wages and working conditions in return for more-generous health-insurance benefits

 

Imagine not having to compromise on working conditions to get health care!  That is an argument against.  It amazes me what people will buy to go against their own self interests.

[row_33]

6 minutes ago, section122 said:

 

employees have compromised on wages and working conditions in return for more-generous health-insurance benefits

 

 

 

i thought major unions in the US took pay cuts to preserve their health plans

 

and then all the Dems gleefully announce that all plans will be destroyed when they win

 

not sure how this brings back the labor vote to the Dems

 

 

[section122]

16 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

i thought major unions in the US took pay cuts to preserve their health plans

 

and then all the Dems gleefully announce that all plans will be destroyed when they win

 

not sure how this brings back the labor vote to the Dems

 

 

That is my point.  Imagine not having to make concessions on your wage or your working conditions (the bigger wow to me) to get health care coverage that almost every other developed nation offers to their citizens.  Taking it back to trickle down economic theory (remember this is why we do corporate tax cuts) the less employers have to pay for insuring their employees the more they can pay them in salary correct?

 

The total cost of health care, including premiums and out-of-pocket costs for employees and dependents, is estimated to average $14,800 per employee in 2019, up from $14,099 this year. Large employers will cover roughly 70 percent of those costs, leaving $4,400 on average for employees to pick up in premium contributions and out-of-pocket expenses.

 

So here is some fun with math:

 

Employers could give each employee a $10,000 a year raise and still come out $400 ahead on each employee.

 

Average wage in the US is $47,060 - $4400 equals $42660 pre tax income

NYS tax (single person) on $42660 is $1881.  Federal tax (at 8.11%) is approx $3461, social security tax is approx $2645 (gasp a socialist tax!) medicare tax (socialist!) approx 618.

Take home wage is approx $34054 and you are responsible for co-pays, prescriptions, etc...

 

If you received a $5000 raise since your employer no longer had to foot insurance costs they would come out $5400 on each employee on average

I'll spare you the math but bring home on is approx $40,973 (8.89% federal tax) if your federal tax was raised to say 20% your bring home is approx $35,188 and your medical costs are minimal to nonexistent.

 

Here is the tax calculator I used if you are so inclined

 

When you avoid the talking points and look at the hard data it is easy to see how this should be in place.  I raised everyone's taxes by 11.89% and they still came out ahead.  Think about that, I more than doubled the federal tax rate and both employees and companies still come out ahead. 

[row_33]

Just now, section122 said:

That is my point.  Imagine not having to make concessions on your wage or your working conditions (the bigger wow to me) to get health care coverage that almost every other developed nation offers to their citizens.  Taking it back to trickle down economic theory (remember this is why we do corporate tax cuts) the less employers have to pay for insuring their employees the more they can pay them in salary correct?

 

 

 

 

Your country decided to not implement a national health care plan, and they sure cannot do one now.

 

I have no moral qualms about this, i would hope that some day the US can provide care for the poor who have dire medical conditions that are readily treated (heart/cancer... nothing fancy)

 

But nobody sees this as a useful goal. 

 

 

[transplantbillsfan]

So where are you @Deranged Rhino at this point on Biden as the candidate?  I mean I know it'll change again and again in the upcoming months, but just gotta have a temperature check 

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/national-polls-and-state-polls-show-pretty-much-the-same-thing/

National Polls And State Polls Show Pretty Much The Same Thing

Don’t ignore South Carolina and Nevada.

A common refrain in coverage of the Democratic primary campaign is that the race looks much different in the early states than it does nationally, with a wider playing field, greater strength for upstart candidates such as Pete Buttigieg, and signs of weakness for the leader in national polls, Joe Biden.

 

The refrain is true if you look only at Iowa or only at New Hampshire, but it’s mostly not true overall. Taken collectively, polls in the four early states — Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina — tell almost the same story as national polls: Biden leads, Elizabeth Warren is in second, Bernie Sanders is in third, and Buttigieg is still a fairly distant fourth.

 

...

 

Put differently, there isn’t much evidence that Biden does worse with voters who see him up close and personal, as often seems to be the implication of coverage that focuses heavily on Iowa and New Hampshire. Instead, he does worse with liberal, college-educated whites, who are plentiful in these states. Intentionally or not, the intense media focus on Iowa and New Hampshire serves to give more influence to liberal, college-educated whites at the expense of African-Americans, Hispanics, moderate Democrats and working-class Democrats, groups that are also key parts of the Democratic coalition.

[3rdnlng]

 

 

[snafu]

23 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

Put differently, there isn’t much evidence that Biden does worse with voters who see him up close and personal, as often seems to be the implication of coverage that focuses heavily on Iowa and New Hampshire.

 

Wait, since Biden has spent most of his time in Iowa, and his numbers there have gone down by a ton, how could that implication be incorrect?  The more Iowans saw of Biden, it seems, the more they were turned off.  I’d leave N.H. out of it because it is obviously Warren/Sanders country. I think it is safe to leave SC out, too, because that’s been seen as solidly for Biden. I honestly don’t think he will be the eventual nominee, and I’m not making any predictions.  I’m just focused on this quoted part of your article you linked. It seems to be the main premise.

 

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

25 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

Wait, since Biden has spent most of his time in Iowa, and his numbers there have gone down by a ton, how could that implication be incorrect?  The more Iowans saw of Biden, it seems, the more they were turned off.  I’d leave N.H. out of it because it is obviously Warren/Sanders country. I think it is safe to leave SC out, too, because that’s been seen as solidly for Biden. I honestly don’t think he will be the eventual nominee, and I’m not making any predictions.  I’m just focused on this quoted part of your article you linked. It seems to be the main premise.

 

 

I've been seeing predictions that he gets skunked (in IA, NH, NV, and SC) and hopes to do well on Super Tuesday. ?‍♀️

 

Hiding a candidate worked well for Hillary, so they can try it again. Could work.

 

[Deranged Rhino]

1 hour ago, transplantbillsfan said:

So where are you @Deranged Rhino at this point on Biden as the candidate?  

 

Same place I've been from the start. Joe has no chance to win the general, and little chance to win the primary. But because the DNC has shown its willingness to rig the results, he might get the primary win -- only to be slaughtered in the general. 

 

The hurt with Joe and the Ukraine hasn't even started yet. Once the impeachment cloud goes public -- Joe's name is going to be dragged into it at every turn. That's going to make him toxic. And he's too dumb, too inept, to counter it politically. 

[IDBillzFan]

2 hours ago, section122 said:

That is my point.  Imagine not having to make concessions on your wage or your working conditions (the bigger wow to me) to get health care coverage that almost every other developed nation offers to their citizens.  Taking it back to trickle down economic theory (remember this is why we do corporate tax cuts) the less employers have to pay for insuring their employees the more they can pay them in salary correct?

 

The total cost of health care, including premiums and out-of-pocket costs for employees and dependents, is estimated to average $14,800 per employee in 2019, up from $14,099 this year. Large employers will cover roughly 70 percent of those costs, leaving $4,400 on average for employees to pick up in premium contributions and out-of-pocket expenses.

 

So here is some fun with math:

 

Employers could give each employee a $10,000 a year raise and still come out $400 ahead on each employee.

 

Average wage in the US is $47,060 - $4400 equals $42660 pre tax income

NYS tax (single person) on $42660 is $1881.  Federal tax (at 8.11%) is approx $3461, social security tax is approx $2645 (gasp a socialist tax!) medicare tax (socialist!) approx 618.

Take home wage is approx $34054 and you are responsible for co-pays, prescriptions, etc...

 

If you received a $5000 raise since your employer no longer had to foot insurance costs they would come out $5400 on each employee on average

I'll spare you the math but bring home on is approx $40,973 (8.89% federal tax) if your federal tax was raised to say 20% your bring home is approx $35,188 and your medical costs are minimal to nonexistent.

 

Here is the tax calculator I used if you are so inclined

 

When you avoid the talking points and look at the hard data it is easy to see how this should be in place.  I raised everyone's taxes by 11.89% and they still came out ahead.  Think about that, I more than doubled the federal tax rate and both employees and companies still come out ahead. 

 

I like how you think employers would give each employee a  raise of over $190/week and be happy they get to keep $7.69/week per employee.

 

That's pretty damn funny.

 

You want fun with math? How about the employer finally gets back the $10,400 a year per employee they've been forced to fork out because of Obamacare, and the federal government finds a way to trim $10,400 a year per working person from some other budget, and then they can pay for it and allow companies to expand and grow with their businesses? Then we increase taxes of all federally elected employees by 11.89%, and give that money to all the families who were promised their annual health insurance would drop by $2500 a month?

 

Now that's change you can believe in.

[3rdnlng]

2 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

I like how you think employers would give each employee a  raise of over $190/week and be happy they get to keep $7.69/week per employee.

 

That's pretty damn funny.

 

You want fun with math? How about the employer finally gets back the $10,400 a year per employee they've been forced to fork out because of Obamacare, and the federal government finds a way to trim $10,400 a year per working person from some other budget, and then they can pay for it and allow companies to expand and grow with their businesses? Then we increase taxes of all federally elected employees by 11.89%, and give that money to all the families who were promised their annual health insurance would drop by $2500 a month?

 

Now that's change you can believe in.

But can I keep my doctor?

[IDBillzFan]

2 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

But can I keep my doctor?

 

Only if you like him. Or her. Or it. Or whatever pronoun they need.

 

Side story: every day I drive by a local business that repairs and rebuilds transmissions. Dude has a big sign outside with his business name on it: Trans Doc. 

 

He'd have a totally different clientele walking through his doors if he set that up in California.

[3rdnlng]

6 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

Only if you like him. Or her. Or it. Or whatever pronoun they need.

 

Side story: every day I drive by a local business that repairs and rebuilds transmissions. Dude has a big sign outside with his business name on it: Trans Doc. 

 

He'd have a totally different clientele walking through his doors if he set that up in California.

I used to drive by a place in Fredonia, NY called S&M Lock & Key. Ended up in one of the Playboy sections.

[3rdnlng]

 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

Victor Davis Hanson: Socialism guarantees failure and suffering – So why do so many Americans support it?

 

         Victor Davis Hanson | Tribune Media Services

 

 

Multiple forms of socialism, from hard Stalinism to European redistribution, continue to fail.

Russia and China are still struggling with the legacy of genocidal communism. Eastern Europe still suffers after decades of Soviet-imposed socialist chaos.

Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea and Venezuela are unfree, poor and failed states. Baathism — a synonym for pan-Arabic socialism — ruined the postwar Middle East.

The soft-socialist European Union countries are stagnant and mostly dependent on the U.S. military for their protection.

 

In contrast, current American deregulation, tax cuts and incentives, and record energy production have given the United States the strongest economy in the world.

 

So why, then, are two of the top three Democratic presidential contenders — Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., — either overtly or implicitly running on socialist agendas? Why are the heartthrobs of American progressives — Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) — calling for socialist redistributionist schemes?

 

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/victor-davis-hanson-history-socialism

 

 

[RochesterRob]

10 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

Victor Davis Hanson: Socialism guarantees failure and suffering – So why do so many Americans support it?

 

         Victor Davis Hanson | Tribune Media Services

 

 

Multiple forms of socialism, from hard Stalinism to European redistribution, continue to fail.

Russia and China are still struggling with the legacy of genocidal communism. Eastern Europe still suffers after decades of Soviet-imposed socialist chaos.

Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea and Venezuela are unfree, poor and failed states. Baathism — a synonym for pan-Arabic socialism — ruined the postwar Middle East.

The soft-socialist European Union countries are stagnant and mostly dependent on the U.S. military for their protection.

 

In contrast, current American deregulation, tax cuts and incentives, and record energy production have given the United States the strongest economy in the world.

 

So why, then, are two of the top three Democratic presidential contenders — Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., — either overtly or implicitly running on socialist agendas? Why are the heartthrobs of American progressives — Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) — calling for socialist redistributionist schemes?

 

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/victor-davis-hanson-history-socialism

 

 

  The socialists always respond to Hanson's question by saying it has never been implemented properly before.  "We'll get it right this time."

[B-Man]

 

 

 

Warren’s Medicare For All: The Longest Political Suicide Note In Recorded History.

 

 

.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Mr. Walnut sauce is bribing people? Who would have thunk it? 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 They think people will follow the stars... 

 

 

How'd that work in 2016? 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[section122]

52 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

Victor Davis Hanson: Socialism guarantees failure and suffering – So why do so many Americans support it?

 

         Victor Davis Hanson | Tribune Media Services

 

 

Multiple forms of socialism, from hard Stalinism to European redistribution, continue to fail.

Russia and China are still struggling with the legacy of genocidal communism. Eastern Europe still suffers after decades of Soviet-imposed socialist chaos.

Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea and Venezuela are unfree, poor and failed states. Baathism — a synonym for pan-Arabic socialism — ruined the postwar Middle East.

The soft-socialist European Union countries are stagnant and mostly dependent on the U.S. military for their protection.

 

In contrast, current American deregulation, tax cuts and incentives, and record energy production have given the United States the strongest economy in the world.

 

So why, then, are two of the top three Democratic presidential contenders — Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., — either overtly or implicitly running on socialist agendas? Why are the heartthrobs of American progressives — Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) — calling for socialist redistributionist schemes?

 

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/victor-davis-hanson-history-socialism

 

 

 

So you won't be taking medicarewhen you come of age right?  That is socialist programs!

 

We should do away with farming subsidies.  Those are socialist!!!

 

Hope you or a loved one are never permanently disabled.  That's a socialist program!

 

I thought it was only dems that were afraid of the commies?  America isn't looking at full socialism.  With all the examples of failing countries why aren't Norway, Sweden, or Denmark mentioned?  They combine socialism and capitalism and are thriving.  I posted upthread about how 8 of the top 10 gdp countries have socialized medicine.  Somehow they all make it work but it is the end of the US if we implement it.

 

It isn't a bad thing to help out your fellow Americans especially when almost every would benefit from it themselves as well.  I would much rather have my tax dollars go to healthcare than never ending conflicts.

 

"We have spent $7 trillion, trillion with a T, $7 trillion in the Middle East."
— Donald Trump on Saturday, April 28th, 2018 in a speech in Washington, Mich.

 

[Deranged Rhino]

5 minutes ago, section122 said:

I thought it was only dems that were afraid of the commies? 

 

.... what?

 

5 minutes ago, section122 said:

 

With all the examples of failing countries why aren't Norway, Sweden, or Denmark mentioned?

 

Because they aren't socialist countries, by any measure. 

 

5 minutes ago, section122 said:

It isn't a bad thing to help out your fellow Americans especially when almost every would benefit from it themselves as well.  I would much rather have my tax dollars go to healthcare than never ending conflicts.

 

"We have spent $7 trillion, trillion with a T, $7 trillion in the Middle East."
— Donald Trump on Saturday, April 28th, 2018 in a speech in Washington, Mich.

 

 

No one argues helping others is bad. No one. 

 

They argue against giving the government more power -- especially over decisions like life and death -- than they already have. 

 

Why would you want to empower a government which you proved above wastes money on endless wars, spies on its citizens, and works to protect its political class over the people they're supposed to represent? 

 

You realize the political class -- which already enjoys too much power and is above the law we are all forced to abide -- only becomes more entrenched. More corrupt. And harder to remove if we swing away from the principles of our republic towards socialism. Socialism is antithetical to our system of government. By it's very design. 

Edited November 7, 2019 by Deranged Rhino

[section122]

26 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

Roseanne Barr supports Donald Trump.  She of the racist ambien tweeting.

Mike Tyson the convicted rapist supports Donald Trump

Ted Nugent and his subhuman mongrel quote support Donald Trump.

Tila Tequila and her craziness supports Donald Trump.

 

None of it means jack!

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, section122 said:

 

None of it means jack!

 

On that we agree. 

 

But it's the best the left has to offer right now. 

 

Which is sad for them.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

.

[section122]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

.... what?

 

 

Because they aren't socialist countries, by any measure. 

 

 

No one argues helping others is bad. No one. 

 

They argue against giving the government more power -- especially over decisions like life and death -- than they already have. 

 

Why would you want to empower a government which you proved above wastes money on endless wars, spies on its citizens, and works to protect its political class over the people they're supposed to represent? 

 

You realize the political class -- which already enjoys too much power and is above the law we are all forced to abide -- only becomes more entrenched. More corrupt. And harder to remove if we swing away from the principles of our republic towards socialism. Socialism is antithetical to our system of government. By it's very design. 

 

Strange you skipped over quoting all of the socialist programs that already exist in the US.

 

To your bolded 

 

Currently, the Nordic countries have been described as being highly democratic. Although there are significant differences among the Nordic countries, they all have some common traits. These include support for a universalist welfare state aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy and promoting social mobility; a corporatist system involving a tripartite arrangement where representatives of labour and employers negotiate wages and labour market policy mediated by the government;[8] and a commitment to private ownership (with some caveats), a mixed economy[9] and free trade.[10]

 

The Social-Democratic welfare state model is based on the principle of Universalism, granting access to benefits and services based on citizenship. Such a welfare state is said to provide a relatively high degree of citizen autonomy, limiting reliance on family and market.[91]:584 In this context, social policies are perceived as "politics against the market".[93]

Social Democratic: Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden

 

links: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state#

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

 

Social Democrat.  Hmmm where have I heard that before... 

[keepthefaith]

5 minutes ago, section122 said:

 

So you won't be taking medicarewhen you come of age right?  That is socialist programs!

 

We should do away with farming subsidies.  Those are socialist!!!

 

Hope you or a loved one are never permanently disabled.  That's a socialist program!

 

I thought it was only dems that were afraid of the commies?  America isn't looking at full socialism.  With all the examples of failing countries why aren't Norway, Sweden, or Denmark mentioned?  They combine socialism and capitalism and are thriving.  I posted upthread about how 8 of the top 10 gdp countries have socialized medicine.  Somehow they all make it work but it is the end of the US if we implement it.

 

It isn't a bad thing to help out your fellow Americans especially when almost every would benefit from it themselves as well.  I would much rather have my tax dollars go to healthcare than never ending conflicts.

 

"We have spent $7 trillion, trillion with a T, $7 trillion in the Middle East."
— Donald Trump on Saturday, April 28th, 2018 in a speech in Washington, Mich.

 

 

Are we to believe that if the US gubmint became the single payer/provider of healthcare in this country that the quality of care delivered will be the same? That they'll deliver and administer healthcare within a budget and as efficiently as its done privately today?  That programs that run reasonably well in other countries of 5 milion people will simply scale to 350+ million?  That everyone not just the rich will truly pay their fair share?  That it won't be an additional burden on businesses of all sizes?  That patients will still be able to get 2nd opinions from doctors when desired?  Who do we turn to if government provides a bad service?  The US government doesn't run any entitlements within budget or within the taxes raised, why are we to believe it will do so for this? 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, section122 said:

Strange you skipped over quoting all of the socialist programs that already exist in the US.

 

There are plenty of programs within the US government which I disagree with. 

 

But the government is a democratic republic first -- not socialist in design, structure, or implementation. 

 

2 minutes ago, section122 said:

To your bolded 

 

Currently, the Nordic countries have been described as being highly democratic. Although there are significant differences among the Nordic countries, they all have some common traits. These include support for a universalist welfare state aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy and promoting social mobility; a corporatist system involving a tripartite arrangement where representatives of labour and employers negotiate wages and labour market policy mediated by the government;[8] and a commitment to private ownership (with some caveats), a mixed economy[9] and free trade.[10]

 

The Social-Democratic welfare state model is based on the principle of Universalism, granting access to benefits and services based on citizenship. Such a welfare state is said to provide a relatively high degree of citizen autonomy, limiting reliance on family and market.[91]:584 In this context, social policies are perceived as "politics against the market".[93]

Social Democratic: Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden

 

links: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state#

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

 

Social Democrat.  Hmmm where have I heard that before... 

 

 

The people of Norway and other Scandanvian countries disagree.

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/402682-nordic-nations-are-not-socialist-theyre-free-trade-lovers

 

They're not socialists. 

 

 

Social democrat is a nonsense term designed to cloak socialists. 

 

Socialism wants to become communism. That's the goal. 

 

And not even you, I imagine, are advocating for communism.